Letting the sentence fit the crime

The jury’s swift verdict in the case of the East Bradford couple who sent a fraudulent and virulent campaign letter to voters in the Downingtown area in the spring of 2011 must certainly put at least one of the two, Donald Skomsky, that his claims of having nothing to do with the letter were not taken seriously.

The jurors wasted no time in finding Skomsky and his wife, Valerie Palfy, guilty on counts of forgery and conspiracy, agreeing with the prosecution that the couple had planned, conceived, written, copied and mailed the three-page, single spaced letter to thousands of voters criticizing the work done by incumbent Magisterial District Judge Rita Arnold during her years in office, and promoting Skomsky’s candidacy.

The panel needed less than 10 minutes to come back with its verdict Thursday after hearing two days of testimony in Judge William P. Mahon’s courtroom. The forgery charge came because Skomsky and Palfy had used the return street addresses of the Democratic and Republican county committees on the letter’s envelope, making some believe that its contents born the authority of party leaders. The letter was unsigned, but made it clear that the writers had knowledge of the working of the political process and wanted Skomsky to take over the position of judge from Arnold.

Interestingly, had the writer not included the parties’ addresses, and used a generic “West Chester, Pa.” return address, they would not have faced the criminal charges they were found guilt of. Similarly, had Skomsky made the accusations of malfeasance in office against Arnold publicly, his candidacy might have gained some traction. As it was, some of the mud he slung against the wall of Arnold’s chambers stuck, as she was in 2012 found guilt of having engaged in improper conduct for a judge and suspended for a month without pay. But by using the subterfuge of the political committee’s addresses, and by remaining anonymous in his criticisms, he and his wife are relegated to the category of mendacious losers.

Advertisement

Now comes the question of penalty for their crimes. In no way do we believe they deserve any term in prison. Their crimes, while serious, are not what our jails are for. Rather, we believe they should be ordered by the court to write and send to all the voters in the Downingtown area, at their expense, a letter of apology, approved by the court. Not for their accusations against Arnold, but for the way in which they were made, and the subversion of the political process the couple sought to undertake. That would be fitting, we believe.